In a child protection matter, the appellant father sought to appeal an order concerning interim care and custody after the Superior Court had dismissed his earlier appeal.
The Court of Appeal held that both the original order and the intervening appeal were interlocutory because they dealt only temporarily with custody of the child.
As a result, the proper appeal route was, with leave, to the Divisional Court rather than directly to the Court of Appeal.
The motion to quash was granted and no costs were awarded.
